Action talks and Saxby Chambliss walks

Last night Georgia’s allegedly conservative Senator, Saxby Chambliss, said on the Senate floor, “America’s fiscal house is in disarray. Our budget process is broken. And future generations will end up paying the price if we continue to ignore the difficult decisions required to fix this grave threat to our country’s financial stability.” He went on to say, concerning these problems, that “we’ve got to address it next year.” Next year? Swell.

But what have Saxby’s actions shown him to be? In typical fashion, in favor of continuing the big spending. He wet his pants with joy over the massive spending bill, which we can’t afford, to inject the Federal government into every school lunch room in the nation. He’s all gung ho for continuing unemployment benefits, which we can’t afford, for the rest of peoples lives if need be.

And now there is an Omnibus Spending Bill on the floor of the Senate that is 1,924 pages long which will cost $1.25 trillion and includes 6,488 earmarks. Where, pray tell, is Georgia’s Senior Senator? At 12:21 p.m EST, he was having a gay old time on the floor of the Senate, yucking it up with his colleagues as they considered amendments to yet another massive piece of pork filled legislation in order to let the people that actually pay income tax keep their rates the same for two more years.

No outrage from Saxby concerning the Omnibus Spending Bill. No anger towards the Democrats. No angst over the fact that the legislation would tie the hands of budget cutters through the end of this fiscal year. No appearances on television asking citizens to contact their Senators or to come to Washington to protest this fiscal abomination. Has anyone ever heard Saxby Chambliss actually get exercised about anything!?!?

Nope. Nothing from the Man from Moultrie, who never seems to show any emotion concerning his being witness to the destruction of the United States from within.

Saxby Chambliss continues to demonstrate that he isn’t a conservative. Meanwhile, Rome burns.

This dude has it spot on: “Georgia’s Republican U.S. Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson must not cave to another trillion dollar Democratic Party extortion bill just so they can get home for Christmas.”

But they will. And once they know that fighting may be difficult, they will support cloture on everything and then cast their vote against the legislation, lose, and head home in time for Christmas.

Or they could fight. Again, though, this is Saxby Chambliss we are talking about. Nevermind.


  1. B Balz says:

    Welcome to the House of Painful Truths.

    You will not like what you are about to hear, but hear it you must:

    Doing nothing is a solution to our problems because it will lead to something being done. That something being done will be horrible and everyone will be able to say: “But I warned you, yes I did.”

    How did we ge to a place where many Dems became irrelevant, and many in the GOP became clowns?

    • Max Power says:

      Thank Ronald Reagan for that. When Reagan came in and there was a huge reduction in income tax without a corresponding huge reduction in government services, people thought hey this is pretty good we can get all this stuff we want from govt, schools, roads, a giant military, and whatnot, and we never have to pay for them.

      Now 30 years later, Americans are like spoiled children who howl at the thought of a few percentage points increase in the tax rate but refuse to cut the size and scope of government. Most Americans under 40 don’t even remember what is was like when we had a proper tax load for the size of our government.

      • LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

        Well said. Reagan apologists on this site will argue that he was forced to accept those bloated budgets because Congress was controlled by the Dems….right. I’m over forty, so I remember the 1980s.

        I’ve said this before here: The greatest trick the Republican party ever pulled was convincing the world they are fiscal conservatives.

    • Junius says:

      Well said. This compromise is a bargain that lets everyone have cake and ice cream when what we need is sacrifice. Until the American people are willing to accept reality (if ever), we will see more of the same – taxes lowest as a % of GDP in 60 years and spending highest % of GDP in 60 years. The day of reckoning is coming and it will come in the form of a swift and painful kick in the groin courtesy of the bond market. I just wish some elected official would have the courage to start talking seriously about this stuff and preparing the public for what has to happen. I haven’t completely given up on Paul Ryan yet.

  2. pegw says:

    I have requested No Earmarks several times. He answers my emails but he just does not get it about earmarks and how important that is to most of his constituents. Last year or the year before was an earmark to research blueberries. Now what is he doing? Requesting 413,000 for peanut research in Alabama. This man has become just like that Alcee Hastings from Florida. His words were we have no rules around here we just do what we want to do. I guess that is what Saxby Chambliss is doing also. Mitch McConnell said he had obtained the signatures of all the Republicans in the Senate to not do earmarks. Sarah Palin was fooled by him, also, and he took her help in his last campaign and I voted for him again. My point being I never used to pay this close attention to our “supposedly” working for their constituents. Right now we want a 2 year stop put on earmarks. Chambliss seems to think he is above the American people with missing the point and not caring. Isn’t he up for re-election in 2012? With all these Senators & Congressmen think that we are still not watching they are seriously wrong. He did not get the message and I hope everyone is made aware of how he plays dirty pool. We do not waste one penny, for anyway, we are about to go under.

  3. Ramblinwreck says:

    Both Saxby and Johnny got elected with the enthusiastic support of the state Republican party. If you want to change what’s happening you need to start with the party leadership first. As long as people like this can claim to be “conservative” and get the full backing of the party why should they change how they operate?

    • racinwithrex says:

      Ramblinwreck December 15, 2010 at 2:55 pm
      Both Saxby and Johnny got elected with the enthusiastic support of the state Republican party. If you want to change what’s happening you need to start with the party leadership first. As long as people like this can claim to be “conservative” and get the full backing of the party why should they change how they operate?

      I couldn’t agree MORE! Seems alot of those in the Republican Leadership are a BIG PART of the problem…..

      • racinwithrex says:

        But then again I was never blessed with a “Earmark” just an “Earache” from listening to them tell us how GREAT they are doing….lol…lol..

  4. Kellie says:

    Congress has spent years kicking the debt can down the road. They vote on huge spending bills hoping that America will hit the jackpot by the time the funds are due. Congress is part of the problem so how can they be the solution?

    • Ramblinwreck says:

      Respectfully, no you won’t. He’s not up again till 2014 and unless someone with significant money to spend primaries him he’ll win again if he runs.

      • chefdavid says:

        And I once heard a State Senator tell me something to the effect “I always support the Republican incumbant first”. (even if he is a duche bag, my paraphrase) As long as we have that attitude it will be a long time to change.

        • Ramblinwreck says:

          You refer of course to Senator Jeff “Maglev” Mullis (Progressive R Chickamauga) who would support Osama bin Laden if he happened to be an incumbent Republican.

  5. Spacey G says:

    Gotta bring home that Port O Savannah dredging pork for the boys at the Home Depot and GPA! Heck, this particular pork grab is so critical Saxby might have to cut back to just 9-holes today.

  6. STEVETARVIN says:

    While I agree that the majority of Americans are in favor of the tax rate extension, the majority are against the earmarks that add an estimated cost of $300Billion to this legislation. I have not spoken to Tom Graves since July 20th, however, I can tell you that I strongly beleive he will vote NO due to the “EARMARKS”. I am not sure that this will pass the House, there will be bipartisant opposition, but will it be strong enough?

    • John Konop says:


      I think you are missing the point. One side argues for tax breaks not being paid for and the other side argues for spending not being paid for. And at the end they compromise by both sides doing both.

      Both sides are like irresponsible spoiled kids!

      • STEVETARVIN says:

        I understand and agree with you. I am a person who believes a “Income Tax” is unconstitutional and especially one that is progressive. We need a simplified tax system that taxes everyone. When everyone pays something, most Americans will register to vote and vote. Then and only then will we control spending in Washington, when it costs everyone, Americans will vote the wasteful spenders out. Today it is estimated that over 60% of Americans receive more from the government than they pay, it simply can’t work.

  7. Three Jack says:

    this is the same saxby who touted his ag bill based on an increase in food stamps spending because those food stamps will be spent.

    now he joined in unanimous consent with his colleagues to pass s3307, the $4.5b federal takeover of local school “nutrition” programs (supported by ga senator chip rogers in his capacity as dir. of govt. affairs for pcrm).

    why would anyone expect this db to oppose the trillion dollar plus omnibus spending bill? he probably has his share of pork included.

  8. Progressive Dem says:

    Earmarks are less than 1% of this spending bill. They are irrelevant to the deficit. If you focus on them, you are being hoodwinked.

    The 2010 Defense Department budget is $530 billion + $660 billion for the two wars. Another $300 to $600 billion is spent on intelligence outside of the Department of Defense. That’s $1.01 to $1.35 TRILION in one year. That spending is weakening us. We never should have gone into Iraq and it’s time to bring the troops back from Afganistan.

    • Harry says:

      Seems to me the earmarks are about 8% of the bill.

      The main issue with earmarks is, they’re used to trade votes in a way not conducive to good fiscal management or open government.

      • STEVETARVIN says:

        Harry is correct, earmarks get legislation passed that would be voted down without them attached. My math shows shows that this mere $9 billion in earmarks done 111 times is $1 Trillion. While $9 Billion is “ONLY” $1 million/day for 24.657 years, a Trillion Dollars is $1million/day for some 2,739.726 years. If you walk past 100 pennies without picking them up you have lost a dollar, yet most will not walk past a dollar. Start with the pennies a soon as possible.

    • Three Jack says:

      pd, using your logic that ‘we never should have gone into iraq….’, i would say we never should have started ss, medicare and medicaid which combined have a debt of about $60t over the next few decades. those programs are at the root of our fiscal problems, not defense of the country as you and your fellow progressives constantly say.

      in the spirit of compromise, i say let’s abolish bankrupt entitlements over the next 7-10 years while eliminating millions in wasteful defense spending.

      • Ramblinwreck says:

        I agree to a point. People who have been forced to contribute to these Ponzi schemes their entire lives should get some return for their “investment” the closer to retirement they are. Anyone under age 40 should be allowed to opt out or redirect the money to an investment vehicle of their own choosing.

        Also, if we would quit going to war except when it’s declared by Congress (aka the lawful way) we’d save a lot of money.

        • John Konop says:


          The problem is the money has already been spent. And we have been paying out more than what people contributed on average. Medicare pays-out 3 dollars for every 2 dollars it takes in. You could cover this up as long as the economy is good and you have way more young people employed than people retiring. And the ironic part is Jimmy Hoffa went to prison for running a union pension fund this way.

          That is why we are in a real catch 22 with this issue. And the solution must be phased in not simple wipe-out ideas like Three Jack proposed.

          I would suggest the following:

          1) We only cover core essentials for Medicare and let non essentials like Viagra… covered privately

          2) We increase the retirement age based on life expectancy.

          3) We allow people under 40 to fade out of the system and invest in low risk funds with guaranteed yields similar to an annuity with a guaranteed interest rate.

          4) We promote the use of directives to lower end of life cost

          5) We allow Medicare to use the lower negotiated drug prices that the VA uses

          6) We allow Americans to buy drugs from Canada

          7) We eliminate anti-trust exemption of healthcare industry

          8) We give tax breaks for home healthcare provided by a family member over using a facility.

          9) We promote holistic approach to healthcare over just treating symptoms.

          • Three Jack says:

            john, why would you want to continue failed government programs by putting bandaids on them as you propose?

            maybe you should re-read my post because i wrote that they should be abolished over a period of 7-10 years. in most circles, that would be considered a phase out process as you support.

            i agree with rw that we should find a cutoff age and get on with admitting these socialistic redistribution programs are dead. maybe they were useful when introduced prior to 401ks and other retirement programs, but they are way past their prime.

            • John Konop says:

              Three Jack,

              The problem is your math does not add-up. You cannot honor the prior commitments without doings cuts like I proposed and doing a much slower phase-out. And as I said the money is already spent.

              Finally if you allowed people to opt out a portion of contribution into an annuity with a 7 to 8 percent guarantee interest rate in a private account in trade for not getting social security you would see many people take the option.

              After a large portion of the baby boom generation dies out you could eventually have people put away the money in a private annuity type investment. Even low wage earners would have a great retirement if they had an annuity type investment with the above rates if they worked the majority of their life.

              The guarantee type investments like this shield the tax payers from a major down turn.

              • Three Jack says:

                why does one have to be “allowed” by government to opt out of an insolvent program that we were forced to enter?

                that’s the problem with your scenario john, it is based on the misconception that government has first right to the money earned by citizens of this country. on the other hand, i think it is high time to change the debate by demanding that government answer to the citizens instead of your way of citizens being at the mercy of their government.

                • John Konop says:

                  Three jack,

                  Because many people paid into the program for years and would be left with nothing by no fault of their own. Your ideas always make great talking points to fire-up the ill informed base, yet they lack adult style thought-out solution based thinking many times.

                  • Three Jack says:

                    konop, either you are naive or backed into a corner with no ability to respond rationally. either way, i made my point and will end here before charlie jumps in to tell us to move on.

  9. Progressive Dem says:

    The bill has $8 billion in earmarks out of $1.2 trillion. That is less than 1%. In fact is it is 0.6% of the bill. Focusing on earmaks is a diversion from reality. There is probably much more government inefficiency in the remaining 99.4% of the spending bill. If you are a fiscal conservative, pay attention to the real spending, not the petty tradeoffs that Congress makes when it passes appropriations. Your watching the lines crew while the football game is being played. Sadly, your views on earmarks an entitlements are similar: if you aren’t on the receving end, they should be eliminated.

    I think most Americans care about their families, friends, communities and other Americans. Second, I think we have a personal and moral responsibility to act on that “care”. Making certain an elderly person isn’t hungry, cold or going without medical attention is not optional. These are necessities. As the population ages, funding and eligibility for entitlement programs will have to be restructured, but Americans will not do away with these programs.

Comments are closed.